The suspense mounts as we obsess over Swopa's live-blogging (Russert 1). However, we have an early indication that his testimony will be lame.
The question of whether Russert weaseled in his statement by maintaining a distinction between knowing Valerie Wilson's name, and knowing something about Joe Wilson's wife seems to have been addressed by Fitzgerald here (but this is a paraphrase, not a transcript):
F: At any time did you [and Libby] discuss the wife of Joseph Wilson?
T: No, because I didn't know who she was until several days later
The defense is up; as of 2:48, we are here:
W: He called you in your managerial capacity of NBC News, right?
T: I didn't know it at first, but yes.
(Wells writes this down, too.)
It's 2:48.
Since I don't know where Wells is going I may not recognize it when we get there.
MORE: In related news, Byron York describes the bending of space and time by Joe Wilson and his apologists. Very quickly, one newly released document is the memo prepared by Dick Cheney's CIA briefer noting his interest in the recent report about Niger, Iraq, and uranium. What is eye-catching is the date, which is Feb 13, 2002. This is *potentially* a big deal becasue the Plame note suggesting her hubby for a Niger trip is dated Feb 12 (see the Senate Intel report).
That jibes with what Libby was told by Grenier (or Grossman) - the CIA was reacting to inquiries from State and Defense regarding the recent DIA report when they teed up Joe; Cheney became one more excuse to send him and a potent name to drop (raise your hand if you think Joe Wilson liked being told that his mission was at the request of the VP; keep your hand down if you think he would have been just as pleased to go at the behest of an Undersecretary of State).
Per York's sources, the Senate never got this memo from the CIA. Interesting - we were assured that this trial would blow the lid off of the manipulation of pre-war intelligence, and maybe it will.
FOR THE COGNOSCENTI: Cecil Turner will feast on the York tidbit; let's hope the rest of us enjoy his "I Told You So" strut.
Don't tell me that Wells did not retain Tom Maguire for Russert's cross examination :(
At least I hope that Tom was able to slip up some questions for the cross examination :)
Posted by: Pete | February 07, 2007 at 03:05 PM
Two more Fitz filings (trying to keep his witnesses fwom being cross examined very much.)
http://members.cox.net/liinda/270.htm
http://members.cox.net/liinda/271.htm
He's bringing out that since he wa calling him in his managerial capacity there was no confidentiality issue at all, TM
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 03:11 PM
Cross posted, per FDL:
That's big. Maybe really big.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 07, 2007 at 03:12 PM
It also makes that reconstruction work (repeated in testimony!) on Tim Russert's own show, more significant. Am I crazy, or did Welles just lay the foundation for Mitchell & Gregory??
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 07, 2007 at 03:13 PM
MainWebReport version
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 07, 2007 at 03:14 PM
FROM CAROL HERMAN
Maine Blogger is keeping up, faster.
Wells asks Russert about his memory. Russert, it seems kept no notes "on the most important story of the year, breaking."
And, then he goes to the FBI "notes." Which is two pages. Russert asks if he can read the whole thing. And, Wells says "yes."
But it seems to contradict the testimony Russert gave to Wells' first questions.
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 07, 2007 at 03:14 PM
JMH,
I suspect Wells is going to aim to make him retract that one. That it's "impossible," I mean.
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 03:14 PM
What are you thinking JM?
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2007 at 03:15 PM
-----------quote----------
W: You had the chief of staff of the VP on the phone, and
T: It was very much a listening mode — he was very agitated, not in the mood to talk.
W: But you didn't take the opportunity?
T: He was saying VP wasn't involved, I took what he said in the spirit he was offering it.
W: Weren't people at NBC trying to learn about Wilson trip?
T; Yes, they were.
W: Why didn't you ask chief of staff of VP?
T: Didn't have opportunity.
W: Why not?
T: Was complainding about program I hadn't seen, so I did
W: Wouldn't have been natural for you to ask, though?
T: Wasn't a natural phone call. Never had one like that from such a high official, complaining and agitated.
W: But such an aggressive journalist, such a big story
T: What I said is what happened.
---------endquote--------
Wells had the same reaction I did. This just isn't believable. Russert is testifying to falling down on his job.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | February 07, 2007 at 03:15 PM
Patrick,
But his excuse is he just got back from vacation and had been out of the loop. That MIGHT even fly. Maybe.
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 03:16 PM
Libby just got back from his vacation when he was interviewed by Bond--without his notes.
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 03:18 PM
I liked the question about his salary - even though it was objectionable.
As in, NBC pays you what? And you didn't get this story? You didn't even try to get this story? You think they may reconsider your salary with this testimony?
Posted by: hit and run | February 07, 2007 at 03:18 PM
I want to know if Russert actually used the word "impossible." Not a lot of wiggle room there. But this isn't a transcript, so who really knows at this point. If he did say "impossible," that's pretty solid.
Plus the part where he specifically said no one else at NBC knew anything about Wilson's wife until AFTER Novak's column.
Posted by: Jim E. | February 07, 2007 at 03:19 PM
Clarice,
Interesting parallel. Think it will turn up in the close?
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 03:19 PM
In short, not seeing a lot of parsing from Russert at this point.
Posted by: Jim E. | February 07, 2007 at 03:20 PM
"Impossible" turns up in both liveblogs I saw, so I'd say yes, Jim E.
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 03:20 PM
Plus the part where he specifically said no one else at NBC knew anything about Wilson's wife until AFTER Novak's column.
Posted by: Jim E. | February 07, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Well, that is good for the Russert count, but it impeaches Ari's story that he specificly told Gregory about Plame (by name).
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2007 at 03:21 PM
Yes, ranger--And BTW "impossible" opens up the barn door.
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 03:22 PM
Russert is a smooth, glib character.
He will be tough to break.
His "two" conversations hint was probably a stumble to the FBI, a quick judgment whether Mithcell and Gregory would shut up.
Posted by: Javani | February 07, 2007 at 03:22 PM
Plus the part where he specifically said no one else at NBC knew anything about Wilson's wife until AFTER Novak's column.
That was stupid. How could he know? He also obviously doesn't remember it terribly well, but that's just another indicator nothing very interesting happened. Bottom line is that Libby didn't tell him anything. (Though I think it'd be an absolutely hilarious bit of poetic justice if the jury came away thinking he was lying.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 07, 2007 at 03:23 PM
As long as folks are ripping Pumpkinhead's professionalism, I think this is my favorite paraphrase from Timmeh: "My personal policy is always off the record when talking to government officials unless specified."
What a pathetic "policy" for a reporter. I would've hoped that his default policy would be "on the record" unless told otherwise.
Posted by: Jim E. | February 07, 2007 at 03:23 PM
fdl: "T: I have no recollection, but it would have been impossible."
mainewebreport: "I have no recollection, and it would have been impossible."
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 03:23 PM
Via Main Web Report
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 07, 2007 at 03:23 PM
"You recall in November 2003 that you did not recall saying anything to Libby about Wilson’s wife?
I did not state her name, no"
WEll sheesh that opens the door a bit, no?
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2007 at 03:24 PM
Both FDL and Maine Web Report report use of "impossible."
So far the cross is interesting.
Posted by: Alcibiades | February 07, 2007 at 03:25 PM
That's big. Maybe really big.
I thought the same thing when I read it.
Posted by: Sue | February 07, 2007 at 03:25 PM
And what's this?
"You recall in November 2003 that you did not recall saying anything to Libby about Wilson’s wife?
I did not state her name, no"
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 03:25 PM
He had two choice:Possible but I have no recollection
Or Impossible
Impossible and no one knew--Katy bar the door--Mitchell and Gregory come in I should think.
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 03:25 PM
""You recall in November 2003 that you did not recall saying anything to Libby about Wilson’s wife?
I did not state her name, no"""
Just her name??? Ouchy, it's true! Russert knew about the wife and is now "forgetting" it.
He's smooth though, the jury would have to be plamaniacs to pick up on his deceit.
Posted by: Javani | February 07, 2007 at 03:26 PM
Did you tell FBI in 2003 that you speak to many people and it is difficult to reconstruct conversations, particularly one that occurred several months ago?
I dont recall but I may have, agrees with statement in general
Hmmm... that is hard to square with the certainty of "impossible."
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2007 at 03:26 PM
But his excuse is he just got back from vacation and had been out of the loop.
I don't even have a paying job, just a full time volunteer and I have never had a vacation without multiple phone calls, emails,etc...
My husband is the same but worse. Looks like we need to encourage our kids to be "journalists."
Posted by: sad | February 07, 2007 at 03:27 PM
You recall in November 2003 that you did not recall saying anything to Libby about Wilson’s wife?
I did not state her name, no
Is that true, question was stated as about saying anyting about wife and Russert says didn't state name?
Posted by: hit and run | February 07, 2007 at 03:27 PM
--I did not state her name, ---
Do you think he realized the impossble problem and quickly went back to canned statement?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 07, 2007 at 03:27 PM
So MTP Producers review the advance wire? Did they see Novak article on the 11th??
"""How did Wilson come to appear?
T: Producer saw op-ed on advance wire....""
Hmmm
Posted by: P | February 07, 2007 at 03:28 PM
Dunno, H&R, only have mainwebreport on it so far.
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 03:29 PM
But no Wells digging in for specific "about wife"? Wells lets that go?
Posted by: hit and run | February 07, 2007 at 03:29 PM
Has the name "Valerie Plame" been uttered in this trial to date? No one has stated her name and we've had an entire trial about her.
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2007 at 03:29 PM
No Jane it really doesn't.
Face it-there's no Deus ex Machina; there's no "scapegoat" defense; and Cheney is not testifying.
It's down to Libby and his memory defense. Risible, but maybe he can pull it off. As the Judge said, it'd be suicide not to testify, but the guy hasn't made a right move yet.
Posted by: Martin | February 07, 2007 at 03:29 PM
Do you recall saying that you cannot rule out the possibility that you and Libby talked about Wilson’s wife?
No.
(Wells asks Libby to read last paragraph of notes)
Russert says those are not his words.
Is it your testimony that you did not tell investigators in 2003 that you could not rule it out completely?
No
Just before:
Did you tell FBI in 2003 that you speak to many people and it is difficult to reconstruct conversations, particularly one that occurred several months ago?
I dont recall but I may have, agrees with statement in general
Looks like Wells is going to argue that Russerts memory improves over time as well.
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2007 at 03:30 PM
fdr: "W: (confusing question)
T: I don't know what that means, but I know that I didn't know about Wilson's wife. That is a significant fact that I would have reported and investigated."
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 03:30 PM
No Jane it really doesn't.
Don't bet the bank on that Martin.
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Then why did you say that to the FBI?
Or, are you saying they just made that up?
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Or is he saying that the FBI is lying - again?
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2007 at 03:33 PM
It appears the FDL gang has a pretty high standard for the cross of Russ. Unsuccessful unles Russ retracts. Wells knows Russ won't retract. But Russ has already given him what he needs: "I have no recollection, but it's impossible." Wells can argue the "it's impossible makes no sense, in light of the lack of any effort the big cheese news guy put into this matter. Plus, he's already stated that no one else at the office knew the info, now Wells can bring up Mitchell, and impeach Russert and herself.
Posted by: Patrick (not Sullivan) | February 07, 2007 at 03:33 PM
Clarice,
Nice lose-lose for the prosecution. Either FBI further undermined, or Russert's certainty is.
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 03:33 PM
It's hard to tell, but is Russert dispting the FBI report of his interview - like the other CIA fellow?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 07, 2007 at 03:33 PM
Maybe Russert opened the door about who was present when he made that statement--since he indicates the statement as recorded may not be accurate.
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 03:33 PM
I'm thinking Gregory told Russert "family member" or such instead of "wife."
Russert's obviously skating on a margin. No way otherwise he would say "I did not state her name"
He might be a liar, but he's a cool cucumber. So far the only way to impeach him I see is to have Gregory say "I told him."
Posted by: Javani | February 07, 2007 at 03:34 PM
Maune guy says Russert is "unflappable".
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2007 at 03:34 PM
So far the only way to impeach him I see is to have Gregory say "I told him."
Someone tell Gregory he gets Russert's job if Russert is canned.
Posted by: hit and run | February 07, 2007 at 03:35 PM
Gregory would rather go to jail than do that I would bet.
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2007 at 03:35 PM
If Fleischer told the truth, Gregory knew all the details. If he was in error and said only what Dickerson says he said,"Ask the CIA", Gregory would only have known there was some connection between Wilson and the CIA.
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 03:36 PM
Here's what I don't get..Russert's statement is only 2 pp and the prosecution didn't go over it with him before they called him?
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 03:37 PM
From Maine:
"Wells is questioning Russert about the wording of NBC’s statement about the issue. This seems like a futile endeavor for Wells, Russert is unflappable."
NBC's statement is a gold mine, but Russert so far is a good witness for Fitz.
Posted by: Javani | February 07, 2007 at 03:38 PM
Or they did and Russert is acting?
Posted by: hit and run | February 07, 2007 at 03:38 PM
When Russert says he had never received a call like that from such a high official as an excuse for him not to do his job asking about the biggest story in DC, I couldn't help but remember this defense before. The Darth Cheney defense.
Alan Foley and CIA: We were so inimidated and diss'd when the VP and Libby came to Langley.
John Bolton: He was intimidating and he yelled sometimes at work
Porter Goss: He is dissing CIA by coming and telling us what to do. He is making life long employees demoralized and intimidated. (Picture Wild Bill Donovan or Bill Casey saying that)
Tim Russert: I was sitting around hoping to get a scoop on the biggest story in Washington, and thinking how do I get a chance to talk to someone high up in the OVP. Suddenly his Chief of staff called and I was so intimidated and demoralized, I completely forgot to ask him about the one thing I spend all my waking hours thinking about.
I also find it interesting that Andrea Mitchell who claimed on July 8 interview that "Covert operatives" were behind the trip and a few weeks later used the phrase , Plame's identity was "widely known". Then Russert, according to Libby said, "all the reporters know...". The language seems similar. I can't help but think that in that 48 hour period between Mitchell and the Russert Call, that Mitchell, Russert, Gregory, and the whole NBC crew were on fir talking about Plame. Why else would she have flipped when Armitage got the Von Sustren interview. Russert and Mitchell are using the same script, how could Libby make that language up before Mitchell used it.
Posted by: T.J. King | February 07, 2007 at 03:40 PM
Clarice,
I figured that Russert would refuse prep - appearance of impartiality, donchaknow.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 07, 2007 at 03:40 PM
"... but the guy hasn't made a right move yet."
Really, Martin? Hasn't he kept all sorts of criminals like Rove, Cheney and Bush from being indicted? Golly, it looks to me like he's carried out our plan to perfection. Are there any flaws in it to this point? I sure can't see them--we finish this thing off, then we bring on the previously-agreed-upon pardon, and you poor stupes are left with visions of Fitzmas dancing in your heads.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 07, 2007 at 03:41 PM
'After the Novak article, when was the first time you reported on it?
'Took several days to discuss whether or not they should report it, classified, etc.'
He just contradicted himself. Earlier he testified he knew it was big news when he read it in Novak's column.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | February 07, 2007 at 03:41 PM
I love this ine in TM's update regarding Wilson's VP "behesting" farce
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 07, 2007 at 03:42 PM
"If Fleischer told the truth, Gregory knew all the details."
Except if Fleischer told the truth, then Libby told Fleischer, who told Gregory, who told Russert, who told Libby.
Got it.
Posted by: Martin | February 07, 2007 at 03:42 PM
*IF*Martin..We already have one reporter flatly contradicting him.And the other hasn't testified yet.
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 03:44 PM
W: (pause) After you deposition with Mr. Fitzgerald, NBC released a statement.
(Wells shows statement to Russert)
It's 3:21. Switching to a new thread.
HERE IT COMES, TM.
Posted by: Patrick (not Sullivan) | February 07, 2007 at 03:45 PM
"If Fleischer told the truth, Gregory knew all the details."
Except if Fleischer told the truth, then Libby told Fleischer, who told Gregory, who told Russert, who told Libby.
Got it.
Posted by: Martin | February 07, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Which brings us to exactly the point you seemed to have missed. Ari didn't tell the truth. He might not have lied either, he just remembered something different from the way it actually happened.
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2007 at 03:45 PM
So I take it folks here think Russert's been a poor witness for the prosecution thus far?
I wonder if Libby agrees.
Posted by: Jim E. | February 07, 2007 at 03:46 PM
Martin:
"Risible"
Snooty condescension is a sure sign of discomfort on your part that Libby will skate.
You won't do well on the witness stand.
Posted by: Javani | February 07, 2007 at 03:46 PM
Ok so IF Fleischer lied then Clarice, Fleischer never told Gregory who never told Russert who never told Libby who nevertheless testified before the grand jury that Russert told him. And this is still good for Libby.
Got it.
Posted by: Martin | February 07, 2007 at 03:47 PM
Not everyone here thinks that he has been a poor witness so far; just those who are operating under the assumption that the only possible theory is that Libby is telling the truth.
Posted by: Cycloptichorn | February 07, 2007 at 03:48 PM
Jim E.
No, actually so far I think he has been a good witness for Fitz. But I also have a feeling Wells expected as much, and is using Russert to set up other testemony he wants to bring in. He already has Russert questioning the FBI notes (that really doesn't help Fitz much).
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2007 at 03:48 PM
Libby telling Fleischer, if he actually did, is not a crime, is it? The President's press secretary has the highest clearances available and are usually in on all discussions. Besides, official to official is not really part of this case, is it?
Now, Fleischer going out and blabbing to a gaggle of reporters something he knows is internal confidential is a crime, IMHO.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | February 07, 2007 at 03:49 PM
Jim E.
"So I take it folks here think Russert's been a poor witness for the prosecution thus far?"
No, that's your expectation challenged by the lack of characterizations like "poor."
FDL is worth a hoot. They can't figure out why Wells is making such a big deal that Russert and Libby are not friends - but that is a critical point.
Posted by: Javani | February 07, 2007 at 03:49 PM
Exactly Ranger-but then we're back to Libby's memory defense.
Since Javani doesn't like "risible" let's just call that defense "so laughably stupid only a fool would fall for it."
Posted by: Martin | February 07, 2007 at 03:50 PM
Byron York: "Libby attorney Ted Wells is trying, so far with little success, to raise doubts about Russert's assertion that he did not know who Joseph Wilson's wife was or whether she worked for the CIA at the time of the phone conversation in which Libby says Russert told him that."
Posted by: Jim E. | February 07, 2007 at 03:50 PM
Via Main Report
--Wells back up.
You wrote a letter to Buffalo News in June 2004 in which you express regret in your error about not recalling a phone call. Do you recall?
Russert asks to see the letter
Wells wont allow this, wants him to say right now that he doesn’t recall it.
Russert says he wants to see it, that there were many other parts to the story.
Wells wants him to answer clearly about his unaided recollection of the letter.
I recall the letter, not the specifics
Part of the letter expressed regret?
If youre saying that,fine, I don’t recall that.
How many letters to you write to news organizations expressing regrets, alot?
No
You did write such a letter to Buffalo News correct?
That may have been part of it.
Russert asks for letter again.
I’m not going to give it to you now. (emphatically)
Wells asks him if he remembers again.
You have a faulty recollection?
Russert kind of agrees
(this exchange is very odd. Wells is trying to impugn Russert’s memory in two dimensions at the same time)
Russert is off now. He can’t remember the details of a letter he wrote, which expressed regret about not remembering a phone call.
Walton comes to the rescue, says he’s saying he doesnt remember, I dont think we’re getting anywhere at this point.
Wells gives Russert the letter finally.--
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 07, 2007 at 03:52 PM
Javani,
Your response to me is non-decipherable.
But I had you in mind when I asked the question. Do you genuinely think Russert is perjuring himself?
Posted by: Jim E. | February 07, 2007 at 03:53 PM
Hey JimE, Javani from 12:38
NBC's statement is a gold mine, but Russert so far is a good witness for Fitz.
Posted by: hit and run | February 07, 2007 at 03:54 PM
From Maine:
""Part of the letter expressed regret?
If youre saying that,fine, I don’t recall that.
How many letters to you write to news organizations expressing regrets, alot?
No
You did write such a letter to Buffalo News correct?
That may have been part of it.
Russert asks for letter again.
I’m not going to give it to you now. (emphatically)
Wells asks him if he remembers again.
You have a faulty recollection?
Russert kind of agrees
(this exchange is very odd. Wells is trying to impugn Russert’s memory in two dimensions at the same time)""
Not odd at all. Impeaching Russert's memory to hell. Complete divergence in his perfect memories of a telephone conversation versus a written document he himself wrote.
Wells! My man!
Posted by: Javani | February 07, 2007 at 03:54 PM
He just contradicted himself. Earlier he testified he knew it was big news when he read it in Novak's column.
Yes he did. And the disparity between his earlier FBI bit is damaging. This may work out after all.
. . . let's hope the rest of us enjoy his "I Told You So" strut.
I strutted too early and now can't enjoy it properly. Oh well.
Ok so IF Fleischer lied then Clarice, Fleischer never told Gregory . . .
That doesn't follow. Fleischer also got it from the INR memo (probably second-hand), which also gives him motive to lie about it.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 07, 2007 at 03:55 PM
Let me suggest that Wells is pointing out Russert's failures at recollection--and--running out the clock for tomorrow.
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 03:56 PM
Well if you read the clip fromthe Senate Intelligence Committee Report a little further-this is interesting-
So this wasn't the first time Valerie volunteered Joseph-it's a pattern.
It also has the "crazy report" quote Other Tom was wondering about.
Posted by: roanoke | February 07, 2007 at 03:57 PM
Jim E. -
""Do you genuinely think Russert is perjuring himself?""
Isn't everyone at this trial perjuring themselves?
I'd omit from that list Cathie Martin and maybe Ari, except he said Libby used the name "Plame".
Posted by: Javani | February 07, 2007 at 03:57 PM
That's impossible Javani...
Posted by: danking70 | February 07, 2007 at 03:57 PM
Why does he want to run out the clock for tomorrow? What's the strategy behind that?
Posted by: Alcibiades | February 07, 2007 at 03:58 PM
So let me get this straight: many of you here believe that Libby was told of Plame's CIA status by Cheney on June 12th, but then forgot, only to be reminded again by Russert about a month later?
You're saying that during the most damaging broadside to the administration's case for war, when Libby was absolutely obsessed with gathering information on Wilson, that he somehow *forgot* that huge piece of information about Wilson's wife?
Seriously?
Posted by: malcontent | February 07, 2007 at 03:58 PM
"and--running out the clock for tomorrow.
Posted by: clarice"
And maybe setting up for a final exchange he wants to leave dangling overnight, if today follows other examples of his crosses.
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 03:58 PM
Who do you think will get the top bunk? Libby or Cheney?
Posted by: pete | February 07, 2007 at 04:00 PM
No, malcontent.
We all all KNOW what this is about, Rove told us. It's all a conspiracy from day one, and Fitz is the key play....
mphm
*disconnects*
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 04:00 PM
alciabiades--if he gets into the tough stuff for Russert and there's an overnight break, the witness might regain his composure. Trial counsel always likes to do the hard cross all at once without an overnight break if possible.(Also, it's easier for the jury to remember it that way.)
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 04:00 PM
Malcontent, they really believe that.
It's like being at a backwoods snakehandling service, though. Their obtuseness gives them strange powers.
Posted by: Martin | February 07, 2007 at 04:01 PM
Thanks Clarice.
Posted by: Alcibiades | February 07, 2007 at 04:03 PM
Martin et al, are you operating under some magical thinking delusion that Russert will save the day if only you dump your troll leavings here every other post?
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 04:03 PM
FROM CAROL HERMAN
When I saw Russert described as unflappable; I thought of John Gotti. He was "unflappable," too. Plus, he wore nice suits.
Did anyone catch Wells' first question to Russert that contained the word "lame?" Or was that he was looking down at the busted ankle?
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 07, 2007 at 04:03 PM
It's like being at a backwoods snakehandling service, though. Their obtuseness gives them strange powers.
Does that make you feel superior? If you had as much disdain for the religion wanting to kill you as you do for the religion not bothering you one bit, we might get somewhere in this war on terror.
Posted by: Sue | February 07, 2007 at 04:03 PM
malcontent
he somehow *forgot* that huge piece of information about Wilson's wife
What huge piece of information would that be?
Posted by: james | February 07, 2007 at 04:04 PM
Malcontent:
""So let me get this straight: many of you here believe that Libby was told of Plame's CIA status by Cheney on June 12th, but then forgot, only to be reminded again by Russert about a month later?""
No. But the case is "about" what he remembered dfive to eight months later.
"You're saying that during the most damaging broadside to the administration's case for war, when Libby was absolutely obsessed with gathering information on Wilson, that he somehow *forgot* that huge piece of information about Wilson's wife?"
LOL. The most damaging broadside was the Bushies trust in Valerie Plame for her finding the "aluminum tubes" were for nuclear work.
"Seriously?"
Yup. Yes'm. Coulda a happened. The only thing for sure is mocking sneers won't abate and you will not discuss impeachments of witnesses, only Fitz' canned prep.
Posted by: Javani | February 07, 2007 at 04:04 PM
Martin, you know absolutely zero about this case or how government works. You display your ignorance every time you post and so do your cohorts. Name calling is what you do when you are outclassed and when someone decides to cast you a bone and show you the error of your erroneous conclusions.
Now, all, let's ignore the trolls. They are just too uninformed to be worth the bandwidth.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | February 07, 2007 at 04:04 PM
Malcontent, they really believe that.
It's like being at a backwoods snakehandling service, though. Their obtuseness gives them strange powers.
Listen, Libby may be guilty. Cheney may have ordered the code red. Bush may have strings on his back that Rove controls. Big oil may be running the whole show.
But you will not come on this board and mock snake handling! You will not, you hear me? Some things are sacred and out of bounds and you crossed the line.
Posted by: hit and run | February 07, 2007 at 04:05 PM
I just did a Pro-Quest search for mentions of Joseph Wilson between July 13th and July 23rd, 2003. The first mentions (outside of Novak's column of 7-14) of Wilson's wife having been disclosed come from Royce and Phelps in Newsday on July 22. More than a week after Russert said; 'That's it'.
Russert is testifying from hindsight.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | February 07, 2007 at 04:05 PM
Wells is showing that memory is especially faulty whenin an agitated state. Strange that FDL has not included the "Not by name" Russert response. Warum?
Posted by: Uncle Pinky | February 07, 2007 at 04:05 PM
Malcontent:
When you say Libby was "absolutely obsessed" with gathering information on Wilson, you are incorrect. He was "obsessed" with rebutting critics, particularly untruthful ones, e.g. Wilson. We have several witnesses, each of whom have varying recollections of mentioning Wilson's wife, but none of them has offered any testimony that Libby was "obsessed" with that portion of the story.
Posted by: Patrick (not Sullivan) | February 07, 2007 at 04:05 PM